Who will die? [Archive]

RNK

23rd April 2007, 23:35

This is an area where I've noticed that right-wingers and non-communists really get confused and paranoid.

Most of us revolutionaries do not really consider executing people a necessity. In the end, it isn't up to us who acts against the revolution, and most of us have come to naturally assume that at some point during or after there will be radical right-wing reactionaries who will essentially form armed counter-revolutionary elements, be it a single disgruntled businessman who detonates terrorist bombs against revolutionary targets, or a mercenary-style militia, or a rogue ex-military commander who attempts to take over a town or city, or corporate leaders who knowingly refuse to follow the rules, who illegally expropriate or launder money. In those regards, those people would have to answer for their actions.

But I don't think many of us support Khmer Rouge tactics of rounding up masses of people deemed "counter-revolutionary" for midnight executions and mass burials. Although I'm sure there are some lurking around who'd agree with that. ;)

luxemburg89

23rd April 2007, 23:39

some police, some military personnel, some civilians, and all of the communists will die in their revolution

How very witty of you. What if the revolution includes anarchists? Will they finish you off then? I would also like to draw attention to the fact that you 'eat communists' is that how we will perish in the revolution, by your mouth? cos to be honest pal i don't much fancy going the same place your father's cock did last night - unless you brushed your teeth - in which case eat away.

lots of love, lux :D

Janus

24th April 2007, 00:28

People die in warfare, nothing unusual there. As far as executions go, I don't think there would be any good reason or point in executing the defunct bourgeois.

wtfm8lol

24th April 2007, 00:35

just an aside question: do any of you actually think there will be a revolution in your lifetime in one of the most technologically advanced countries such as the US or Germany or Japan?

Qwerty Dvorak

24th April 2007, 00:36

luxemburg89

24th April 2007, 01:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:35 pm
just an aside question: do any of you actually think there will be a revolution in your lifetime in one of the most technologically advanced countries such as the US or Germany or Japan?
sometimes i have my doubts but if i didn't have doubts i would be a blind slave to the cause - which i am not, i am consciously aware of what i believe and by challenging this from time to time I am able to justify my beliefs to myself. I do not know whether I will see a revolution but I think that i should work towards one for the future, whether that is in my lifetime or not. No one knows much really - but you just know considerably less than most.

lots of love, lux :D

Pilar

24th April 2007, 18:20

There is far less reason to kill anyone than you may think.

Re-education and jailing is virtually unnecessary.

Who cares whether the current generaltion of cappies "change their world view" or not. Dumb, dimb, dumb.

I'll put this in cappie terms, and my fellow revolutionaries will forgive me for this discussion.

Imagine a United States without the Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment and without the Contracts clause in Article I, Section 10 (I think). Therefore, imagine a U.S. where propterty was not protected constitutionally, and a Congress which could act as Cuba did in the early 60's, and take property and reassign its ownership without compensation. Then imagine after all of the reclassification of the property occurred, that all of the laws that allowed citizerns the right to create businesses were abolished, and that the tools of production came under the authority of Congress, and that there were no business or private interest powers to meddle in Congress's decisions, and that those decisions truely reflected the needs of the United States' citizens.

Who would you need to kill?'

The "magic" would be in the INABILITY of the capitalist to move property from point a to point b. Without such power, what capitalism would exist?

If the community observed an attemt to "act cappie-like", by all means, kill the bastard, and the pigs surrounding him. But if Tony Soprano has no money to pay his henchment, or has no territories to assign others to operate, he and his friends might as well be the Tuesday Afternoon Backgammon Club.

It's really simple: You kill those who are counter-revolutionary by their conduct Post-Revolution. AND YOU BETTER KILL THEM HARD AND FAST.

ichneumon

24th April 2007, 18:55

personally, anyone who deliberately entertains plans of mass murder or armed revolution while living in a western democracy is insane. clinically, functionally insane.
the revolution is NOT about bloodthirsty revenge-minded Columbine-teens getting their rocks off. proactive violence is entirely unacceptable. if the far left is going to purge anyone, i would purge these folks, not the christian anarchists or what not.

yes, i did say it. no, you can't restrict me for it - revolution is not inherently violent. reactive violence, perhaps; proactive, never.

pusher robot

24th April 2007, 19:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:20 pm
There is far less reason to kill anyone than you may think.

Re-education and jailing is virtually unnecessary.

Who cares whether the current generaltion of cappies "change their world view" or not. Dumb, dimb, dumb.

I'll put this in cappie terms, and my fellow revolutionaries will forgive me for this discussion.

Imagine a United States without the Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment and without the Contracts clause in Article I, Section 10 (I think). Therefore, imagine a U.S. where propterty was not protected constitutionally, and a Congress which could act as Cuba did in the early 60's, and take property and reassign its ownership without compensation. Then imagine after all of the reclassification of the property occurred, that all of the laws that allowed citizerns the right to create businesses were abolished, and that the tools of production came under the authority of Congress, and that there were no business or private interest powers to meddle in Congress's decisions, and that those decisions truely reflected the needs of the United States' citizens.

Who would you need to kill?'

The "magic" would be in the INABILITY of the capitalist to move property from point a to point b. Without such power, what capitalism would exist?

If the community observed an attemt to "act cappie-like", by all means, kill the bastard, and the pigs surrounding him. But if Tony Soprano has no money to pay his henchment, or has no territories to assign others to operate, he and his friends might as well be the Tuesday Afternoon Backgammon Club.

It's really simple: You kill those who are counter-revolutionary by their conduct Post-Revolution. AND YOU BETTER KILL THEM HARD AND FAST.
It's really simple: You kill those who are counter-revolutionary by their conduct Post-Revolution. AND YOU BETTER KILL THEM HARD AND FAST.

I understand this to be a pragmatic, practical justification, that is not fundamentally related to ideology itself (i.e., it would only occur if necessary to preserve the ideology).

Having established that, can you give me a nonideological reason why capitalists should not adopt the same principle towards revolutionary communists? Or are capitalists, in your opinion, foolish for granting you the right to live?

Pilar

24th April 2007, 19:37

It's really simple: You kill those who are counter-revolutionary by their conduct Post-Revolution. AND YOU BETTER KILL THEM HARD AND FAST.

I understand this to be a pragmatic, practical justification, that is not fundamentally related to ideology itself (i.e., it would only occur if necessary to preserve the ideology).

Having established that, can you give me a nonideological reason why capitalists should not adopt the same principle towards revolutionary communists? Or are capitalists, in your opinion, foolish for granting you the right to live?

Pusher Robot:

I can only respond in terms of the United States.

Like most questions about the United States that ask a political why and why not, the answer is "because the Supreme Court says so."

In this case, the Supreme Court has ruled that speech or conduct that advocates physical means to change the body politic that allows for police action against those who advocate same requires that it pass the Brandengurg (sp?) standard, cited in a case by that name.

Specifically, for police action to be allowed against speech and/or conduct, the speech/conduct must NOT be protected by the First Amendment. One must advocate violence, have the ability to to it, AND THE IMMEDIATE THREAT to an identifiable target. Though a general target will be allowed if identifiable.

I don't know if this answer will help you. But what would be the point anyway? There's no point in launching a revolt unless you're sure of winning, or have good odds to do so. What makes you revolutionaries versus murderers is that you win, so you're around to write the history books after the smoke clears.

pusher robot

24th April 2007, 20:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:37 pm

It's really simple: You kill those who are counter-revolutionary by their conduct Post-Revolution. AND YOU BETTER KILL THEM HARD AND FAST.

I understand this to be a pragmatic, practical justification, that is not fundamentally related to ideology itself (i.e., it would only occur if necessary to preserve the ideology).

Having established that, can you give me a nonideological reason why capitalists should not adopt the same principle towards revolutionary communists? Or are capitalists, in your opinion, foolish for granting you the right to live?

Pusher Robot:

I can only respond in terms of the United States.

Like most questions about the United States that ask a political why and why not, the answer is "because the Supreme Court says so."

In this case, the Supreme Court has ruled that speech or conduct that advocates physical means to change the body politic that allows for police action against those who advocate same requires that it pass the Brandengurg (sp?) standard, cited in a case by that name.

Specifically, for police action to be allowed against speech and/or conduct, the speech/conduct must NOT be protected by the First Amendment. One must advocate violence, have the ability to to it, AND THE IMMEDIATE THREAT to an identifiable target. Though a general target will be allowed if identifiable.

I don't know if this answer will help you. But what would be the point anyway? There's no point in launching a revolt unless you're sure of winning, or have good odds to do so. What makes you revolutionaries versus murderers is that you win, so you're around to write the history books after the smoke clears.
I didn't ask why capitalists can't or don't destroy communist revolutionaries. I asked for a moral reason why they shouldn't, given that we have already established that communists should destroy capitalists.

Pilar

24th April 2007, 20:22

I asked for a moral reason why they shouldn't, given that we have already established that communists should destroy capitalists.

We didn't establish that commies should kill cappies. In fact, if you read MY contribution, you found I advocate abolishing the CONDUCT making capitalism possible. I only advocate killing those who attempt to circumvent or fight against Revolutionary goals and principles DURING POST-REVOLUTIONARY TIMES.

You ask for a moral reason about an event that may not occur until far into the future. This is silly and its pursuit of no real value. If you have a time machine and can kill a person who is definately baby Hitler, then do it. If you have a time machine and can only kill baby Hitler by killing all German babies born in 1889, would you still do it? What if you had to kill all European babies born in 1889, would you still do it?

It's far easier for cappies to tolerate living commies in their society because commies in today's world are only theoretical dreamers and planners. It's impossible for commies to tolerate capies in post revolutionary United States because their damage would be real and ongoing.

Cult of Reason

24th April 2007, 20:34

Who will die?

If I had my way? Nazis, Fascists, Stalinists, Maoists, Primitivists. It is only fair really, they'd be trying to get me.

And, of course, counter-revolutionaries.

- SectarianExtraordinaire

Jazzratt

24th April 2007, 20:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:34 pm

Who will die?

If I had my way? Nazis, Fascists, Stalinists, Maoists, Primitivists. It is only fair really, they'd be trying to get me.

And, of course, counter-revolutionaries.
Aren't "Nazis, Fascists, Stalinists, Maoists, Primitivists" and so on counter revolutionaries anyway?

wtfm8lol

24th April 2007, 20:42

And, of course, counter-revolutionaries.

good luck trying to kill me you pile of scum

Cult of Reason

24th April 2007, 20:52

Aren't "Nazis, Fascists, Stalinists, Maoists, Primitivists" and so on counter revolutionaries anyway?

Caught me. :wub:

JazzRemington

24th April 2007, 20:57

I like how whenever a thread gets started over who will be killed in a revolution, the cappies take it personally and get all passionate and defensive.

bcbm

24th April 2007, 21:00

Lots of people on both sides will die. It'll probably be a clusterfuck.

pusher robot

24th April 2007, 21:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:57 pm
I like how whenever a thread gets started over who will be killed in a revolution, the cappies take it personally and get all passionate and defensive.
Well? Why oughtn't we? We promote and live in a society that, while it may not be organized the way you like, at the very least gives you the opportunity to speak your mind, to complain, to agitate, demonstrate, and dissent loudly and publicly. If you want, you could even remove yourself live out your ideals on your own property, at your own expense of course. On the other hand, you promote a society that apparently is so fragile it can brook no dissent, kills the non-adherents, and offers no choice to live a different life, even by our own labor and our own expense. Oughtn't I take it personally that you deem me unfit for life itself, even while I grant you all the prerogatives you would deny me?

JazzRemington

24th April 2007, 21:32

On the other hand, you promote a society that apparently is so fragile it can brook no dissent, kills the non-adherents, and offers no choice to live a different life, even by our own labor and our own expense.

Communists don't want to quash dissent or people wanting to do something different. If one does not like something that a group is doing, he or she is free to live. Nothing is stopping you from living on your own by your own labor and only your own labor. And don't pull any bullshit to the effect of you'd be coerced some how into being part of collective labor. If capitalists don't accept having to work for a capitalist as being coercive, they have no argument to support that one has to work collectively with others.

Also, doing away with oppressive structures does not constitute how fragile something is. Need I remind you that many of the revolutions that installed pro-capitalist governments did the same thing you are accusing us of? If we measured how fragile capitalism was by how much counter-revolutionaries suffered, then that means capitalism is possibly the most fragile system on the planet. And none of this nonsense on how we KNOW capitalism isn't fragile because it lasted so long. Hind sight is 20/20.

Oughtn't I take it personally that you deem me unfit for life itself, even while I grant you all the prerogatives you would deny me?

What's wrong with someone setting up a way to deal with back lash from a group they deposed after a revolution?

Pilar

24th April 2007, 21:43

Well? Why oughtn't we? We promote and live in a society that, while it may not be organized the way you like, at the very least gives you the opportunity to speak your mind, to complain, to agitate, demonstrate, and dissent loudly and publicly. If you want, you could even remove yourself live out your ideals on your own property, at your own expense of course. On the other hand, you promote a society that apparently is so fragile it can brook no dissent, kills the non-adherents, and offers no choice to live a different life, even by our own labor and our own expense. Oughtn't I take it personally that you deem me unfit for life itself, even while I grant you all the prerogatives you would deny me?

Robot, take it easy man. Life's too short.

It's 2007, and you live in a society that believes it's wrong for companies to meet privately and regulate matters to increase their profits. Not so in 1870. It was allowed, and was the norm.

In 1870, slavery in the U.S. had been abolished a few years ago, but in 1790, it was legal in some states.

In 1790, federal government jobs weren't allowed to have a religios requirement, but in 1690, colonial jobs could.

Now, flash forward to 2050. Isn't it possible there will be a society that will not allow a person to own 200 acres of wheat farm, have him control it, while millions starve every day?

In a commie society, this stuff might not occur, simply as the other stuff was abolished. Your grandchildren may view the situation just as normally as you view no slavery, and it being illegal to have monopolies, or forced religion.

luxemburg89

24th April 2007, 21:58

I am pretty sure the entire OI will be lined up against the wall.

Depends if wtfm8lol wants to eat us.

good luck trying to kill me you pile of scum

You are not only the wittiest but also the kindest thing I have ever met - hey guys he wished us luck. If only all arseholes could have the grace and courtesy that you have employed here. You know sometimes i wish i could adopt you - i could use something to beat when i have a bad day :D

Question everything

24th April 2007, 21:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:42 pm

And, of course, counter-revolutionaries.

good luck trying to kill me you pile of scum
Honestly, I'm surprised no one has yet... :P

I figure we'd all co-exist peacefully with rainbows and smiley faces...

:P But seriously, once communism etablished itself we'd be the majority, so the only reason we'd have to kill anyone is because they did something that would get them killed in a capitalist society ie. Assassination, Arson, Armed Uprising (just to name the things that start with A) :P

pusher robot

24th April 2007, 22:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:32 pm
Nothing is stopping you from living on your own by your own labor and only your own labor.
So if I don't want to live in the collective, and go off on my own and draw my own water, farm my own fields, and build my own home, nobody will stop me - even if I produce a surplus and keep it all for myself? If others bring me the surplus goods that they made with their own labor, I can trade my surplus for theirs? And nobody could just come and take my land or my home or my surplus away from me, even if they "needed" it more? Now the critical question: if some people come from the commune to trade their labor for some of my surplus - what then?

In a commie society, this stuff might not occur, simply as the other stuff was abolished. Your grandchildren may view the situation just as normally as you view no slavery, and it being illegal to have monopolies, or forced religion.Maybe. But I'm reasonable certain that I never will. How are you going to deal with my contrary beliefs? What if I refuse to obey?

Question everything

24th April 2007, 22:37

Originally posted by pusher robot+April 24, 2007 09:17 pm--> (pusher robot @ April 24, 2007 09:17 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 08:32 pm
Nothing is stopping you from living on your own by your own labor and only your own labor.
So if I don't want to live in the collective, and go off on my own and draw my own water, farm my own fields, and build my own home, nobody will stop me - even if I produce a surplus and keep it all for myself? If others bring me the surplus goods that they made with their own labor, I can trade my surplus for theirs? And nobody could just come and take my land or my home or my surplus away from me, even if they "needed" it more? Now the critical question: if some people come from the commune to trade their labor for some of my surplus - what then?

In a commie society, this stuff might not occur, simply as the other stuff was abolished. Your grandchildren may view the situation just as normally as you view no slavery, and it being illegal to have monopolies, or forced religion.Maybe. But I'm reasonable certain that I never will. How are you going to deal with my contrary beliefs? What if I refuse to obey? [/b]
Well just say "Damn those capitalist punks when will they learn to stop respecting authority... it doesn't make sense to be a radical"

gilhyle

24th April 2007, 22:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:08 pm
Which makes the revolution a very scary idea.
Speaking as a revolutionary, what is often scary is how few revolutionaries understand this.

Qwerty Dvorak

24th April 2007, 23:02

Originally posted by gilhyle+April 24, 2007 09:57 pm--> (gilhyle @ April 24, 2007 09:57 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 03:08 pm
Which makes the revolution a very scary idea.
Speaking as a revolutionary, what is often scary is how few revolutionaries understand this. [/b]
Oh do enlighten us as to what you exactly you mean.

JazzRemington

24th April 2007, 23:19

So if I don't want to live in the collective, and go off on my own and draw my own water, farm my own fields, and build my own home, nobody will stop me - even if I produce a surplus and keep it all for myself? If others bring me the surplus goods that they made with their own labor, I can trade my surplus for theirs? And nobody could just come and take my land or my home or my surplus away from me, even if they "needed" it more? Now the critical question: if some people come from the commune to trade their labor for some of my surplus - what then?

You don't seem to grasp the concept of a communist society. Since you are not employing anyone and you are pretty much self-sufficient, you have nothng to worry about. Why would anyone bother you?

I don't know what, if any, trade will exist in a full communist society. There might be some trading between groups and individuals. But you probably will be able to negotiate some sort of trading agreement with other groups.

But, the point about seeking employment is a moot one. If someone is able to obtain their necessities more than aptly collectively, why would they want to enter into an employment relationship?

Idola Mentis

25th April 2007, 00:28

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 24, 2007 10:17 pm
So if I don't want to live in the collective, and go off on my own and draw my own water, farm my own fields, and build my own home, nobody will stop me - even if I produce a surplus and keep it all for myself?(...)
You don't know much about farming, do you? It takes more than one "rugged individualist" to make a living off the land for any length of time. And once you bring in the help, you've got a collective, even if it's a collective of just one family.

How would you prefer to organize such a primary subsistence collective? Some cultures have retained the millenia worth of expertise necessary to grow and prosper in this way. I doubt yours is one of them. I don't see why anyone should stop you. Perhaps if you went about it in a way that clearly put the lives of others at risk?

Idola Mentis

25th April 2007, 00:45

Originally posted by RedStar1916+April 24, 2007 11:02 pm--> (RedStar1916 @ April 24, 2007 11:02 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:57 pm

[email protected] 23, 2007 03:08 pm
Which makes the revolution a very scary idea.
Speaking as a revolutionary, what is often scary is how few revolutionaries understand this.
Oh do enlighten us as to what you exactly you mean. [/b]
Huh? Seems pretty clear to me. Or are you actually looking forward to infrastructure collapse, violent actions and supression, terrorist activities from both revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries, faction in-fighting, mobs, summary executions...? I could go on. Think Iraq, then scale it up to involve seven billion people.

"The revolution is not a tea party". When the gloves come off, all sorts of fucktards comes crawling out of the woodwork. Since the ones in power are not going to let go peacefully, we are headed for all kinds of shit. Maybe in five years, maybe in ten years or maybe in a century, but it will happen. I'll even work towards it to get it over with, and soften the blows, but you're not going to make me *like* it, and I can't say I feel much comradeship with anyone who thinks I should. Check the quote in my profile.

No one here is going to sit on a throne and decide who dies or lives. And I see no reason that anyone should aspire to. Civil war is one of the messiest things there is, and innocents die for no good reason at all - why are people so eager to mess it up even further by ritually murdering their defeated foes like some cut-price iron age caesar?

Pilar

25th April 2007, 01:26

QUOTE
In a commie society, this stuff might not occur, simply as the other stuff was abolished. Your grandchildren may view the situation just as normally as you view no slavery, and it being illegal to have monopolies, or forced religion.

Maybe. But I'm reasonable certain that I never will. How are you going to deal with my contrary beliefs? What if I refuse to obey?

Well, what if you refuse to obey a court order? Currently in American society, there are really only two things that can happen to you: a court can order something bad to happen to your body, or something bad to happen to your property.

In communist society (some will differ here), nothing will happen to you, unless you count the loss of your freedom to contract as a "bad thing". When it comes down to it, Marxism is the abolition not of freedom of speech as much as it's an abolition of freedom to make private agreement THAT WILL HAVE REMEMDY.

If you remember your basic law concepts, a contract is an agreement between two or more parties that a) an authority (read court) will recognize, and b) provide a remedy in the case of breach.

What happened if you were in a society where there were no remedy in the case of breach for a private agreement made by you and Mr. X? What if there were no courts for you to run to for remedy? What if there was no legal relief, but only equitable relief in line with socialist principles.

Pusher, I really don't care if you obey or fail to obey. What if you don't pay your rent or mortgage? You eventually are homeless. What if you refuse to contibute to growing food, and your community believed you to be healthy and capable. I suppose you could find another community that would accept your labor for food. (Right now, if you're like 95% of American society you exchange labor for food.) What would your labor be?

Let's say you sell homes. What if no one bought homes or sold them? Who needs to make you do anything?

There's a difference between refusing to obey and taking arms against the Revolution. If you were a Brit or Loyalist in 1779, and took up arms against the colonists, would you be surprised if you were shot at, or tarred and feathered?

Why don't you respond to some of these notions I have posted, instead of continuing to say you'll refuse to obey?

Jude

25th April 2007, 03:04

Tarring and Feathering, huh? sounds good.
A chicken named Patton... :ph34r:

wtfm8lol

25th April 2007, 03:14

If you were a Brit or Loyalist in 1779, and took up arms against the colonists, would you be surprised if you were shot at, or tarred and feathered?

the rest of your post doesn't make much sense so i'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with this, but are saying that murdering people who disagree with you is justified because it was done in the past? i only ask this because pusher (to my knowledge) never said anything about taking up arms, so i can't tell if youre saying it because of that or if you're just putting more irrelevant crap in your post for some reason.

Jude

25th April 2007, 03:22

I believe that he is referencing the theory of 'kill or be killed'.

Whether he actually means killing can only be answered by him

RNK

25th April 2007, 03:43

What if I refuse to obey?

You'd have to do more than simply refusing to obey to get in any "trouble". I mean, if you want to refuse to work, refuse to take part in your community, refuse to participate in the ownership of your workplace, then fine. Nobody's going to stop you.

But if you try to expropriate a valuable resource, and then demand an exchange which is disproportionate to the value of the work necessary to produce it, ie, you manipulate peoples' need for that product in order to aquire material surplus, then you'll be breaking the law. Maybe you'll be put on probation, "fined", or jailed, depending on the severity of your actions.

pusher robot

25th April 2007, 04:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:26 am
What happened if you were in a society where there were no remedy in the case of breach for a private agreement made by you and Mr. X? What if there were no courts for you to run to for remedy? What if there was no legal relief, but only equitable relief in line with socialist principles.
I'll tell you what would happen - both parties would agree to have the contract enforced by a third party, who is willing and able to use force to enforce the terms for a fee or a cut - like a repo man. No doubt a private enforcement business would quickly spring up.

Let's say you sell homes. What if no one bought homes or sold them? Who needs to make you do anything?
Nobody needs to make me do anything. I simply want to be left alone, and allowed to make whatever agreement I want with whomever I want. I don't want somebody to tell me I can't pay someone else the surplus I generate to come and clean my toilet. I refuse to acknowledge responsibility for anybody but myself and the people I choose to make myself liable to. My birth should not be a liability on me! When I threaten not to obey, I don't mean to take what is not mine and give nothing in exchange. I mean to refuse to hand over the fruits of my own labor against my will. If I take nothing, only ever trading value for value, will I permitted to give nothing?

There's a difference between refusing to obey and taking arms against the Revolution.
Granted. I would expect anybody I was using force against to respond in kind. I'm thinking about after the battle. When I may follow the letter of your rules but not the spirit, and rail against your policies to anyone who will listen, and take every opportunity to undermine and frustrate your objectives without actually using force against others, and advocate and promote your usurpation.

I frequently read "up against the wall" type comments. It shocks and disturbs me to think that there are fellow humans who appear to feel pleasure at the thoughts of the slaughter of others. Why is there so much misanthropy? Are these idle threats, or do recalcitrant brains spattered on brick represent your true vision of a glorious future?

RNK

25th April 2007, 04:07

When I may follow the letter of your rules but not the spirit, and rail against your policies to anyone who will listen, and take every opportunity to undermine and frustrate your objectives without actually using force against others, and advocate and promote your usurpation.

You, like everyone else, would be free to voice your opinions and beliefs, openly; you would, however, be restricted from using financial superiority from obtaining a disproportionately "loud" voice; for instance, you would not be allowed to spend millions of dollars to slap political messages all over television, or buy a newspaper to pursue your political agenda, and other types of activities. You would be able to talk to your community, voice your opinions at community gatherings, etc.

ZX3

25th April 2007, 15:24

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 24, 2007 02:37 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 24, 2007 02:37 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 07:34 pm

Who will die?

If I had my way? Nazis, Fascists, Stalinists, Maoists, Primitivists. It is only fair really, they'd be trying to get me.

And, of course, counter-revolutionaries.
Aren't "Nazis, Fascists, Stalinists, Maoists, Primitivists" and so on counter revolutionaries anyway? [/b]
The first four are revolutionaries, the last perhaps is not(but doubtful).

ZX3

25th April 2007, 15:29

Originally posted by gilhyle+April 24, 2007 04:57 pm--> (gilhyle @ April 24, 2007 04:57 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 03:08 pm
Which makes the revolution a very scary idea.
Speaking as a revolutionary, what is often scary is how few revolutionaries understand this. [/b]
Yes. Far too many socialists fail to understand the bloodthirsty nature of socialism...

Qwerty Dvorak

25th April 2007, 16:50

Huh? Seems pretty clear to me. Or are you actually looking forward to infrastructure collapse, violent actions and supression, terrorist activities from both revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries, faction in-fighting, mobs, summary executions...? I could go on. Think Iraq, then scale it up to involve seven billion people.

"The revolution is not a tea party". When the gloves come off, all sorts of fucktards comes crawling out of the woodwork. Since the ones in power are not going to let go peacefully, we are headed for all kinds of shit. Maybe in five years, maybe in ten years or maybe in a century, but it will happen. I'll even work towards it to get it over with, and soften the blows, but you're not going to make me *like* it, and I can't say I feel much comradeship with anyone who thinks I should. Check the quote in my profile.

No one here is going to sit on a throne and decide who dies or lives. And I see no reason that anyone should aspire to. Civil war is one of the messiest things there is, and innocents die for no good reason at all - why are people so eager to mess it up even further by ritually murdering their defeated foes like some cut-price iron age caesar?
Oh, I never thought of it like that before :rolleyes:

You know, I think a good majority of Communists know not only that there will have to be a revolution at some point, but also that people are going to have to die in said revolution. I'm so sick of people like gilhyle and yourself, thinking you are bringing something new to socialism or even to this board by turning around and telling us all that--OMFG NO WAI--violence isn't pretty. We all know this, the difference is that most of us accept it as an inevitable and necessary step in the progress of humanity. We don't just go around whining about it, and criticizing other leftists about it.

pusher robot

25th April 2007, 17:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:50 pm
We don't just go around whining about it, and criticizing other leftists about it.
But some of you actually glorify it. Are you okay with that?

Qwerty Dvorak

25th April 2007, 18:16

Originally posted by pusher robot+April 25, 2007 04:30 pm--> (pusher robot @ April 25, 2007 04:30 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 03:50 pm
We don't just go around whining about it, and criticizing other leftists about it.
But some of you actually glorify it. Are you okay with that? [/b]
Well they don't try to tell me I'm not a "real" leftist because I don't see the negative aspects of a revolution (which I do).

gilhyle

25th April 2007, 18:27

And, Redstar1916, you think I was addressing you ?,,,Why ? If the cap fits, wear it, if it doesnt ....don't.

Pilar

25th April 2007, 20:19

I've thought a lot about what you have been discussing Robot, and I have concluded you are an idiot.

There comes a time when the Revolution, ANY revolution, is over and done with, and people stop fighting and the losers acquiesce to the new political reality and authority.

Imagine a man in 1935 Russia, acting the way you suggest, and safeguarding his way of life, based on pre-Revolutionary reality. He buys and seels and makes contracts as you suggests.

Obviosly, besides being viewed as a crackpot, he would be dealt with. To what extent would depend upon how persistant he was.

You have the idea capitalism would still continued, enforced by enforcers rather than courts. Is that what happened in 1930s and 40s and 50s Russia? Capitalism continued, the state allowed it, and there were hired thugs protecting capital for the fwe poor and sorry souls who couldn't move on.

What if we put you in 1966 Cuba, and you buy campanies, and hire laborers and "market value", and run your own import-export business regardless of the Castro regime. You'ld look like a moron, your friends would fel sorry for you, and you'ld eventually be dealt with.

I know...let's put you in 1980 Vietnam. You refuse to accept there was an end to the war and operate daily as if you had all of the cappie abilities you had in 1950 Vietnam. What do you think would happen to you.

What if you refused to give up your loyalty to the morarchy in 1795 United States? Wht if your "right to contract" in your mind, meant holding slaves?

I could go on but you get the point. The matter is NOT about whether or nor force would be used against you, the matter is about how pathetic you'ld look acting as though the revolution didn't win.

Naturally, if the cappies won, anyone pretending that there was no longer U.S. Constitutional presence in Kansas or New Mexico would also look like an idiot. It works both ways.

It's amazing you would believe otherwise would be the case.

Question everything

25th April 2007, 20:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:04 am
Tarring and Feathering, huh? sounds good.
A chicken named Patton... :ph34r:
Patton is accually a social democrat and is in general a pretty nice guy.

pusher robot

25th April 2007, 20:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:19 pm
The matter is NOT about whether or nor force would be used against you, the matter is about how pathetic you'ld look acting as though the revolution didn't win.
Really? The important thing is not whether you act rightly or wrongly according to your moral principles, but how you look to others? To do so is to allow your morality to be governed by the will of others!

I understand your point - morals change and I could find myself out of step with the rest of society. I'll grant you that. I am trying to determine whether that is grounds to use violence against me, assuming I never initiate force against anybody else. I honestly don't know what you people think. On the one hand, I see frequent glorifications of the bloodshed of your enemies. On the other hand, whenever I try to get specific, it's all "oh, no, you'll be allowed to do anything you want, nobody will hurt you."

Well, where's the line? You may have noticed that so long as you don't hurt others, in a capitalist society you can do or say any damn fool thing you want. You are allowed to be out of step. You are allowed to try to undermine the society by nonviolent means. Would a communist society be more or less liberal? In practice, they have always ended up far less liberal, with all the bloodshed and vengeance some of you seem to seek. But you talk about theory and everybody can do anything they want.

ichneumon

25th April 2007, 21:05

But some of you actually glorify it. Are you okay with that?

NO!!!

i'm NOT okay with it. i've said repeatedly that actively plotting to murder people makes you INSANE and any such people need medication or to be locked up. they threaten to ban me for it. go figure.

Pilar

25th April 2007, 21:10

You may have noticed that so long as you don't hurt others, in a capitalist society you can do or say any damn fool thing you want.

Probably one of the most inacurate statements ever made at the IO board.

The Bill of Rights did NOT spring from capitalism, but as a reaction to the treatment of the Brits toward the colonists. It is true Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, but it did not influence basic human freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, warrants for search and seizure, jury trials, and the abolition of cruel and unusual punishments.

The above statement would also be challenged by many who lived under Somosa, or Marcos, or Franco.

Please read a history book.

I am done commenting at this thread.

Question everything

29th April 2007, 19:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:10 pm

You may have noticed that so long as you don't hurt others, in a capitalist society you can do or say any damn fool thing you want.

Probably one of the most inacurate statements ever made at the IO board.

The Bill of Rights did NOT spring from capitalism, but as a reaction to the treatment of the Brits toward the colonists. It is true Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, but it did not influence basic human freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, warrants for search and seizure, jury trials, and the abolition of cruel and unusual punishments.

The above statement would also be challenged by many who lived under Somosa, or Marcos, or Franco.

Please read a history book.

I am done commenting at this thread.
Wait Pilar is Banned? But he said that rights don't come from capitalists, (sure he is a troll but he's already in OI) what did he say to get him self banned, is he a nazi?

wtfm8lol

29th April 2007, 19:53

Wait Pilar is Banned? But he said that rights don't come from capitalists, (sure he is a troll but he's already in OI) what did he say to get him self banned, is he a nazi?

sock puppet, methinks

Question everything

29th April 2007, 19:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:53 pm

Wait Pilar is Banned? But he said that rights don't come from capitalists, (sure he is a troll but he's already in OI) what did he say to get him self banned, is he a nazi?

sock puppet, methinks
Thanks.

Kwisatz Haderach

29th April 2007, 22:07

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 23, 2007 04:46 pm
I frequently see on this board references to current capitalists being executed or imprisoned. On another thread, I saw references to priests being executed.

I don't hang around communists IRL. Are these facetious? I honestly cannot tell. But especially in light of the ravings of Cho, I find them hard to dismiss.

If not, what is the rationale for determining who is to live and who is to die? Is simply being a dissident enough to garner a death sentence? An influential dissident?
An escalation of violence is dangerous and unnecessary. I believe the revolution needs to use only the amount of violence that is strictly necessary. This means that the only capitalists we should be shooting are those who are shooting us first (or hiring thugs to shoot us). In other words, I believe violence should be used only against those who have themselves used violence against us (or paid others to do so).

Kwisatz Haderach

29th April 2007, 22:10

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 25, 2007 09:36 pm
Well, where's the line? You may have noticed that so long as you don't hurt others, in a capitalist society you can do or say any damn fool thing you want.
That is only half true. Capitalism allows you to do anything you want as long as you don't harm others or touch the property of others. It's the "property" part that we have a problem with.

wtfm8lol

29th April 2007, 22:16

if you hurt someone's property, you hurt them. perhaps not physically, but almost certainly economically.

Rawthentic

29th April 2007, 22:20

if you hurt someone's property, you hurt them. perhaps not physically, but almost certainly economically.
Capitalist property is theft, and therefore should be abolished. And will post-revolution.

wtfm8lol

29th April 2007, 22:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:20 pm

if you hurt someone's property, you hurt them. perhaps not physically, but almost certainly economically.
Capitalist property is theft, and therefore should be abolished. And will post-revolution.
nice slogan. now im convinced property should be abolished.

Question everything

29th April 2007, 22:43

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+April 29, 2007 09:31 pm--> (wtfm8lol @ April 29, 2007 09:31 pm)
hastalavict[email protected] 29, 2007 04:20 pm

if you hurt someone's property, you hurt them. perhaps not physically, but almost certainly economically.
Capitalist property is theft, and therefore should be abolished. And will post-revolution.
nice slogan. now im convinced property should be abolished. [/b]
:D Wtfm8lol is a comrade now!!!
( <_< )

Rawthentic

29th April 2007, 22:43

Whether you like it or not, it will be abolished for social property, into the hands of those who created all the wealth.

wtfm8lol

30th April 2007, 00:12

Whether you like it or not, it will be abolished for social property, into the hands of those who created all the wealth.

i doubt it

Kwisatz Haderach

30th April 2007, 00:36

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 24, 2007 08:11 pm
It's really simple: You kill those who are counter-revolutionary by their conduct Post-Revolution. AND YOU BETTER KILL THEM HARD AND FAST.

I understand this to be a pragmatic, practical justification, that is not fundamentally related to ideology itself (i.e., it would only occur if necessary to preserve the ideology).

Having established that, can you give me a nonideological reason why capitalists should not adopt the same principle towards revolutionary communists? Or are capitalists, in your opinion, foolish for granting you the right to live?
Every communist revolution in history has occurred in a country where the government was actively killing or jailing any communists it could find. Some ideologies are at their most powerful when they are being actively persecuted. Communism appears to be one of these.

By now, most capitalists have discovered this little fact, so they are aware that openly persecuting communists is not likely to serve their interests.

Notice, by the way, that liberal capitalist ideology does not appear to have the same power of resistance as communist ideology. The list of communist rebel groups, guerillas, underground movements and all sorts of revolutionary organizations aimed at overthrowing established governments is endless. But when was the last time you heard of an armed liberal or libertarian resistance movement?

I think it is safe to postulate that under normal circumstances there is no armed liberal resistance to a non-liberal regime. Or, in simple terms, capitalists are cowards.

Rawthentic

30th April 2007, 00:37

i doubt it
Keep on doubting.

t_wolves_fan

30th April 2007, 01:04

Originally posted by Edric O+April 29, 2007 11:36 pm--> (Edric O @ April 29, 2007 11:36 pm)
pusher [email protected] 24, 2007 08:11 pm
It's really simple: You kill those who are counter-revolutionary by their conduct Post-Revolution. AND YOU BETTER KILL THEM HARD AND FAST.

I understand this to be a pragmatic, practical justification, that is not fundamentally related to ideology itself (i.e., it would only occur if necessary to preserve the ideology).

Having established that, can you give me a nonideological reason why capitalists should not adopt the same principle towards revolutionary communists? Or are capitalists, in your opinion, foolish for granting you the right to live?
Every communist revolution in history has occurred in a country where the government was actively killing or jailing any communists it could find. Some ideologies are at their most powerful when they are being actively persecuted. Communism appears to be one of these.

[/b]
Just like militant Islam in Saudi Arabia and especially Egypt.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

30th April 2007, 01:12

I think that killing is only ever acceptable in cases of self-defence. Not that I'd like to see 500,000 people butchering each other in the fields in the name of "self defence."

I'd like to consider political opponents as being arms of an abusive system, and not the system itself. I propose we treat all people as equals.

Kwisatz Haderach

30th April 2007, 01:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:04 am
Just like militant Islam in Saudi Arabia and especially Egypt.
That situation is a little more complicated, because both the government and the Islamist opposition claim to speak for "true" Islam. This is particularly true in Saudi Arabia.

If you wanted a communist parallel for the situation in Saudi Arabia, you would need something like a communist insurgency in China - that is, a communist insurgency against a government that claims to uphold communism too.

In any case, what is your point?

Rawthentic

30th April 2007, 01:16

I propose we treat all people as equals.
Not if they are counterrevolutionaries back who want to return to wars, poverty, death, starvation.

wtfm8lol

30th April 2007, 01:38

Not if they are counterrevolutionaries back who want to return to wars, poverty, death, starvation.

ya, those 4 things that disappear whenever communists take power.

Phalanx

30th April 2007, 01:54

Not if they are counterrevolutionaries back who want to return to wars, poverty, death, starvation.

That was a needless comment.

Rawthentic

30th April 2007, 02:29

ya, those 4 things that disappear whenever communists take power.
Thats will disappear when we workers create communism.

wtfm8lol

30th April 2007, 02:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:29 pm

ya, those 4 things that disappear whenever communists take power.
Thats will disappear when we workers create communism.
right, i forgot you guys have the recipe for utopia

Kropotkin Has a Posse

30th April 2007, 06:28

Not if they are counterrevolutionaries back who want to return to wars, poverty, death, starvation.

They may want to return us to it, but as our equals the individual capitalists and nationalists can't coerce us into doing so.

EwokUtopia

30th April 2007, 06:38

Less will die after capitalism than in it. I mean, 30,000 people starve to death daily, and this number will swell dramatically unless the ills of the environment are cured, which is unprofitable at the time, so Im not hopeful of this happening under the current status quo.

But 30000 a day...pretty hard to top that. But I dont think anyone should be killed unless they represent an immediate threat to other people (IE are shooting at them and the like). Some War Criminals and Criminals to Humanity will be imprisoned, but I abhor the concept of execution. Personally, I would rather publically humiliate the criminals of humanity, but not actually physically harm them. Fill their hearts with the despair they gave to others, but not fill their bodies with pain.

So, who will die? Whoever kills or tries to kill, but only if it is needed to stop them, not in retribution.

30th April 2007, 06:50

This thread is as dumb as the people that seriously responded to it.

colonelguppy

30th April 2007, 07:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:38 am
Less will die after capitalism than in it. I mean, 30,000 people starve to death daily, and this number will swell dramatically unless the ills of the environment are cured, which is unprofitable at the time, so Im not hopeful of this happening under the current status quo.

But 30000 a day...pretty hard to top that. But I dont think anyone should be killed unless they represent an immediate threat to other people (IE are shooting at them and the like). Some War Criminals and Criminals to Humanity will be imprisoned, but I abhor the concept of execution. Personally, I would rather publically humiliate the criminals of humanity, but not actually physically harm them. Fill their hearts with the despair they gave to others, but not fill their bodies with pain.

So, who will die? Whoever kills or tries to kill, but only if it is needed to stop them, not in retribution.
some speculate that 30-50 million starved as a result of economic reorganization under mao, i think making this a worldwide occurance could easily outstrip the rate at which people currently starved

30th April 2007, 07:14

some speculate that 30-50 million starved as a result of economic reorganization under mao, i think making this a worldwide occurance could easily outstrip the rate at which people currently starved

Really? Can you prove that it's a result of economic reorganization and that the starvation rate wasn't the same or higher before the CP came into power? Also, can you tell me how the CP's tactical decisions within China have anything to do with global proletarian revolution?

Red Tung

30th April 2007, 08:34

some speculate that 30-50 million starved as a result of economic reorganization under mao, i think making this a worldwide occurance could easily outstrip the rate at which people currently starved

But, how did that come about? The chance of revolution happening in peace time in a relatively stable society that is not governed by a widely hated regime is virtually nil.

Any sort of revolution that will come about will only come after some sort of cataclysmic event that the population finds intolerable. A economic collapse like the weimar republic is one or a deeply unpopular war is another.

Which countries in the world faces both these threats or put in another way given the highly integrated global economy which country in the world doesn't face at least one of these threats?

I don't know about you, but a wheel barrow full of money that isn't worth the paper it's printed on to buy basic necessities given that I even have enough for a wheel barrow full of cash is quite an intolerable situation for me as well as for most people.

ZX3

30th April 2007, 12:47

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 29, 2007 06:36 pm
Every communist revolution in history has occurred in a country where the government was actively killing or jailing any communists it could find. Some ideologies are at their most powerful when they are being actively persecuted. Communism appears to be one of these.

By now, most capitalists have discovered this little fact, so they are aware that openly persecuting communists is not likely to serve their interests.

Notice, by the way, that liberal capitalist ideology does not appear to have the same power of resistance as communist ideology. The list of communist rebel groups, guerillas, underground movements and all sorts of revolutionary organizations aimed at overthrowing established governments is endless. But when was the last time you heard of an armed liberal or libertarian resistance movement?

I think it is safe to postulate that under normal circumstances there is no armed liberal resistance to a non-liberal regime. Or, in simple terms, capitalists are cowards.

In Russia, PRAVDA was sold on the streets, unmolested, by 1910. The bolsheviks were members of the government which they overthrew.
In China, Chiang and Mao were allies throught the 20s.
In Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, all had "liberal" members in opposition until they too were toppled by the reds. The claim that every communist revolution occurred where the reds were targets is rubbish.

Still, it is is true that liberal ideology does not not have the same power of resistance as 'armed revolutionary groups" have had. The answer though seems more involved than saying capitalists are "cowards." It has more to do that capitalists are the worst possible defenders of capitalism, since they cannot spend time defending capitalism as an institution. They are too busy. It also has to do with the individualist nature of the "liberal" project, which is much more difficult to explain and defend than the collectivist, "mass-man" views of their various collectivist enemies.

Not so the "armed revolutionary groups" who get their intellectual fodder from those who are not at all busy, and are plowed with generally very infantile views of the world and society by those who give it a respectable, scholarly view.

ZX3

30th April 2007, 12:51

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 30, 2007 01:14 am
Also, can you tell me how the CP's tactical decisions within China have anything to do with global proletarian revolution?
One would think that a communist regime in China would be more alike than unlike a communist regime in the USA or Botswana.

The claim that abolishing capitalism will be done radically different from one country to another is another in the line of socialist/communist/anarchist absurdities.

RNK

30th April 2007, 13:52

The claim that abolishing capitalism will be done radically different from one country to another is another in the line of socialist/communist/anarchist absurdities.

Thank god we have someone like you who truely understands every aspect of Communism. This board would not be able to function, what with us thousands of communist learners, without your ineffible wisdom.

In China, Chiang and Mao were allies throught the 20s.

And...? They had a common enemy. Fuedalism.

In Russia, PRAVDA was sold on the streets, unmolested, by 1910. The bolsheviks were members of the government which they overthrew.

And last week I went to the moon.

Please do not push your distorted and completely incorrect version of history on us. I don't see how someone can refute basic fact. But there you go, doing it again.

ZX3

30th April 2007, 18:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:52 am

The claim that abolishing capitalism will be done radically different from one country to another is another in the line of socialist/communist/anarchist absurdities.

Thank god we have someone like you who truely understands every aspect of Communism. This board would not be able to function, what with us thousands of communist learners, without your ineffible wisdom.

In China, Chiang and Mao were allies throught the 20s.

And...? They had a common enemy. Fuedalism.

In Russia, PRAVDA was sold on the streets, unmolested, by 1910. The bolsheviks were members of the government which they overthrew.

And last week I went to the moon.

Please do not push your distorted and completely incorrect version of history on us. I don't see how someone can refute basic fact. But there you go, doing it again.
Judging from the many posts on OI board, and others, few really do understand communism. But don't believe me, so many of your fellow revlefters think that of each other.

BTW, you are correct... PRAVDA was founded and sold in the streets of Russia begining in 1912, not 1910. Oh! The persecution :rolleyes:

EwokUtopia

30th April 2007, 20:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:08 am
some speculate that 30-50 million starved as a result of economic reorganization under mao, i think making this a worldwide occurance could easily outstrip the rate at which people currently starved
Well I am no fan of Mao. His revolution was possibly one of the worse communist revolutions, and it has failed almost completely. Not everyone in this forum is a supporter of Leninism/Maoism. Hell, we arent even all communists, Im not, Im much more of an Anarchist myself. I dont believe in a sudden and quick revolution, this is absurd, and it has failed time and again. The revolution will take decades, and must not be chaotic or ultraviolent. We need to keep the system we mean to change (society) intact, not simply destroy it and try to build it again, this causes far too many deaths, particularly of the poor.

We need to realize that the change in society that we advocate is monumentous, and to think you can do it in a year or two is absurd...look what happened to the societies built on those revolutions. Russia and China are perhaps the most brutally capitalist nations on earth. The revolution requires two things; time and dedication.

Question everything

30th April 2007, 21:20

Originally posted by Question everything+April 24, 2007 08:58 pm--> (Question everything @ April 24, 2007 08:58 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 07:42 pm

And, of course, counter-revolutionaries.

good luck trying to kill me you pile of scum
Honestly, I'm surprised no one has yet... :P

I figure we'd all co-exist peacefully with rainbows and smiley faces...

:P But seriously, once communism etablished itself we'd be the majority, so the only reason we'd have to kill anyone is because they did something that would get them killed in a capitalist society ie. Assassination, Arson, Armed Uprising (just to name the things that start with A) :P [/b]
Here is what I have to say about it.

Red Tung

1st May 2007, 05:07

right, i forgot you guys have the recipe for utopia

utopia? Oh, please. It took some semi-feudal backwoods country that was invaded twice and nearly destroyed to spur on the "greatest" Capitalist country in the world to take space exploration seriously. If it wasn't for the Soviet Union to humiliate the richest country in the world by beating it in launching a satelite, the lunar landings would still be a work of fiction.

So what have happened sinced the lunar touch down was scored? The Capitalist ruling class simply decided that the game was over and packed up and went home. Pathetic.

With 1970's technology lunar landings was possible. So with more than 30 years of technological development what's been accomplished? Where's the lunar colonies and floating cities? Instead it's just more of the same misuse of technology for "value" speculation, swindling and war profiteering. If that's not a clear indication of the decrepit state of the present system and their advocates I don't know what is.

pusher robot

1st May 2007, 15:36

With 1970's technology lunar landings was possible. So with more than 30 years of technological development what's been accomplished? Where's the lunar colonies and floating cities? Instead it's just more of the same misuse of technology for "value" speculation, swindling and war profiteering. If that's not a clear indication of the decrepit state of the present system and their advocates I don't know what is.

I'd say it's a better indicator of the addled thinking of communists. We don't have moon bases and floating cities because there's no real value in those things. We've been to the moon, and found out pretty much everything there is to find out about it. There's nothing at all to be gained by a moon base right now except to prove that it could be done. There's no actual reason people should live in floating cities when there is plenty of land on Earth. Instead, we've focused on actual, real-world space benefits: the Hubble telescope, near-orbit Earth observation, GPS, and communications relays. Apparently, the "communist way" is to pass up these real-world benefits because they're just too profitable, and instead piss away vast resources into fantastically expensive boondoggles that have no use to anyone whatsoever. I can't imagine why you think this would be a good thing.

1st May 2007, 15:41

Moon Base Announced by NASA (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061204-moon-base.html)

Red Tung

1st May 2007, 19:35

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 01, 2007 02:36 pm

With 1970's technology lunar landings was possible. So with more than 30 years of technological development what's been accomplished? Where's the lunar colonies and floating cities? Instead it's just more of the same misuse of technology for "value" speculation, swindling and war profiteering. If that's not a clear indication of the decrepit state of the present system and their advocates I don't know what is.

I'd say it's a better indicator of the addled thinking of communists. We don't have moon bases and floating cities because there's no real value in those things. We've been to the moon, and found out pretty much everything there is to find out about it. There's nothing at all to be gained by a moon base right now except to prove that it could be done. There's no actual reason people should live in floating cities when there is plenty of land on Earth. Instead, we've focused on actual, real-world space benefits: the Hubble telescope, near-orbit Earth observation, GPS, and communications relays. Apparently, the "communist way" is to pass up these real-world benefits because they're just too profitable, and instead piss away vast resources into fantastically expensive boondoggles that have no use to anyone whatsoever. I can't imagine why you think this would be a good thing.

I'd say it's a better indicator of the addled thinking of communists. We don't have moon bases and floating cities because there's no real value in those things.

Opening up a new frontier for human settlement is valueless? Says who? Sure, for some unimaginative millionaire who can rely on his accumulated "value" to live a life of luxury from the labour of those who are without such savings anything that would threaten his savings of value would indeed be valueless. Conservative thinking at it's best.

From this we can learn that a hierarchy of stable accumulated wealth breeds contempt for progress. And what is the best system for accumulating stable wealth? Note, businesses only operate on the basis of profit otherwise they close up shop.

There's no actual reason people should live in floating cities when there is plenty of land on Earth.

Which is slowly being overpopulated and turned into a gigantic junkyard from "waste" produced from mass-marketed consumable junk that could only have found a "use" after slick marketing campaigns.

Apparently, the "communist way" is to pass up these real-world benefits because they're just too profitable, and instead piss away vast resources into fantastically expensive boondoggles that have no use to anyone whatsoever.

I not sure that you understand the full extent of the population boom problem that has to do with exponential growth in poor populations which is again a problem that is created from a system that runs on accumulated "value" therefore the net worth of a poor person is zero and the value of starting programs to help poor popuation is less than zero since it decreases the net worth of somebody else who is richer. Demographically a relatively rich population passes up on the desire to have children so much so that rich industrialized countries like Germany and Japan are actually aging.

Not exactly. The infrastructure of most industrialized countries were built from massive government programs because the people then actually had the foresight in seeing the value of such things as transcontinental railways, highways and air transport. The national electricity and communication network would not have been possible without centralized government programs.

Further, in this system of money circulation resources are only expensive relative to the amount of money spent on it which may not be the same as the actual amount of required physical resources to complete a project. I mean some very talented and intelligent people could just as well be paid handsomely in money terms to work on some other trivial consumer crap like making a new drug to prolong erections.

pusher robot

1st May 2007, 21:34

Opening up a new frontier for human settlement is valueless? Says who?

Says the aggregated demand of each individual in the society, as proven by the fact that people are not willing to pay for such endeavors. What do you have to contradict that? Your feelings? What right do you suppose to substitute your own judgement for that of your fellow citizens?

Now, you might plausibly argue, as I often do, that space exploration is a special case subject to a particular market failure that would benefit from an initial government foothold mission, but even that argument relies on the benefit being greater than the cost.

Which is slowly being overpopulated and turned into a gigantic junkyard from "waste" produced from mass-marketed consumable junk that could only have found a "use" after slick marketing campaigns.

This seems to be an argument peculiar to Europeans who don't seem to appreciate how much empty, habitable land there is in the U.S. alone. You aren't European by any chance, are you?

There is no land shortage, and even if there were, it would still be less expensive to simply build mega-skyscrapers than orbital housing projects.

The infrastructure of most industrialized countries were built from massive government programs because the people then actually had the foresight in seeing the value of such things as transcontinental railways, highways and air transport. The national electricity and communication network would not have been possible without centralized government programs.

I agree for the most part, but you undermine you own argument because (a) many of those projects were undertaken by private enterprise and (b) it was obvious at the time that the actual benefit would rapidly be much greater than the initial cost.

Further, in this system of money circulation resources are only expensive relative to the amount of money spent on it which may not be the same as the actual amount of required physical resources to complete a project. I mean some very talented and intelligent people could just as well be paid handsomely in money terms to work on some other trivial consumer crap like making a new drug to prolong erections.

If the people in the society value longer erections more than moon bases, why shouldn't those talented people work on longer erections instead of moon bases? By what right do you claim the power to personally decide what is and is not "trivial crap?"

RNK

1st May 2007, 21:48

This seems to be an argument peculiar to Europeans who don't seem to appreciate how much empty, habitable land there is in the U.S. alone.

And who's going to build it? Who can afford to buy land, pay land taxes, build a house, electricity, plumbing, etc? That's not really possible on $10 an hour. There's a difference between available housing and habitable land. Only millionaire companies and individuals can afford to build residential buildings; the rest of the 99% of the population can only sit and wait for them to become available.

Red Tung

1st May 2007, 22:39

Says the aggregated demand of each individual in the society, as proven by the fact that people are not willing to pay for such endeavors. What do you have to contradict that? Your feelings? What right do you suppose to substitute your own judgement for that of your fellow citizens?

And why do you assume it would cost them anything? If the economic system wasn't so irrational as to rely on somebody else to pay I.O.U. bills (money) for something that have no correlation to debt then talented people can simply do their jobs from acquired physical resources to make things that are materially productive. A space shuttle or a rocket in material terms cost as much as a single jumbo jet airplane. The actual costs of making anything complex is simply from the time spent on talented people working on them, so in that case material costs are irrelevant.

Take a computer processor chip for instance. The cost of production given automated production of one of these are miniscule after paying the initial labour for development. And, again that project wasn't even considered as beneficial to the general population until a few hobbyists got it off the ground in the 80's. What this demonstrates is that profitability of any given service or product has no correlation to it's utilitarian usefulness. Capitalism may be an efficient system for generating profits, but it is not a humane or progressive system. The profitability of clearly harmful services and products is a testament to that.

This seems to be an argument peculiar to Europeans who don't seem to appreciate how much empty, habitable land there is in the U.S. alone. You aren't European by any chance, are you?

There is no land shortage, and even if there were, it would still be less expensive to simply build mega-skyscrapers than orbital housing projects.

The energy required to lift loads into space has been calculated already and in terms of costs it is minimal. Any freshman physics student knows this. Also, as said before, the stable accumulation of wealth that a money system allows breeds conservatism in both technology and production. Rockets are simply inefficient, crude, medieval technology grafted onto the twenty first century. There are many more effective ways of lifting loads into space, but these programs have been cut off of funding because there is no profitable way of making something that could be materially beneficial in a system that runs on accumulation of profit. You can't accumulate costs in investments on a physical level, on monetary level yes, but returns on paid out debts are expected so given a irrational system that relies on money, it's just not done.

I agree for the most part, but you undermine you own argument because (a) many of those projects were undertaken by private enterprise and (b) it was obvious at the time that the actual benefit would rapidly be much greater than the initial cost.

And the initial costs were? Many people died while building these transcontinental railways, but their sacrifices were rewarded in terms of what? It benefitted the private enterprises and their share holders which built these railways, but for the common person involved in the building?

If the people in the society value longer erections more than moon bases, why shouldn't those talented people work on longer erections instead of moon bases? By what right do you claim the power to personally decide what is and is not "trivial crap?"

So are you agreeing that the Nazi regime is not evil then? There are many people cheering them on in their many rallies and propaganda has convinced the average unthinking person that the way forward lies in obeying without question some authoritarian tyrant. Isn't that really a market reaction of the masses for their beloved leader? Afterall, Hitler was voted into power.

But, let's take a less extreme example. By what right do you claim that you should have safe products and services given that everything is determined by a profit driven market. Isn't product safety government departments which is derived from taxes claimed from businesses an interference in the natural workings of the market? Would you rather have food poisoning after consuming competing brands that chose to beat out the competition by reducing safety standards?

Further, who in the end decides to hire these talented people for work? By what right are you claiming the ability to hire them if they are not free to choose themselves how they want apply their talents? It's simple. Accumulated money allows for accumulated power over what to do with resources including human resources.

pusher robot

1st May 2007, 23:27

A space shuttle or a rocket in material terms cost as much as a single jumbo jet airplane.

I call BS. The shuttle's advanced ceramic heat shield alone cost more than that. Please provide a source.

The actual costs of making anything complex is simply from the time spent on talented people working on them, so in that case material costs are irrelevant.

I don't know why you think I was talking only about material costs anyways. The fact is there are only so many people with these kinds of advanced skills. If they are working on pointless space boondoggles, they aren't working on something else.

Take a computer processor chip for instance. The cost of production given automated production of one of these are miniscule after paying the initial labour for development. And, again that project wasn't even considered as beneficial to the general population until a few hobbyists got it off the ground in the 80's.

This is simply a ludicrous re-imagining of history. Just look at the history of IBM and EDS, or TI or Motorola. "Hobbyists" had nothing to do with it. Jobs and Wozniak didn't actually design, develop, or manufacture most of the microchips in their Apple computers, you know. You only have to look at the market today to see how silly your statement is. Are hobbyists designing multigigahertz processors and billion-dollar fabrication facilities?

What this demonstrates is that profitability of any given service or product has no correlation to it's utilitarian usefulness.

It demonstrates no such thing, because there was an unimaginable utility to computer technology, and there remains great utility today.

The energy required to lift loads into space has been calculated already and in terms of costs it is minimal.

I simply don't know how to argue with somebody who just makes up whatever facts they feel like. Back here in reality, using roughly the most efficient rocket technology that is practical, it takes about 1.0 * 10^13 joules to put the space shuttle in orbit. That's about 2.75 MILLION kilowatt-hours, roughly 25% of the total electrical usage of the ENTIRE U.S. for a YEAR.

There are many more effective ways of lifting loads into space, but these programs have been cut off of funding because there is no profitable way of making something that could be materially beneficial in a system that runs on accumulation of profit.

Again, this just isn't reality. There is currently huge profit potential in those technologies specifically because it's currently so expensive. The first individual or corporation to perfect any cheaper technology would be rich beyond all measure.

It benefitted the private enterprises and their share holders which built these railways, but for the common person involved in the building?

They got paid above-average wages, they were able to buy goods from further away for cheaper, they were able to move about the country less expensively and at greater convenience, etc. They benefited an all the ways that any infrastructure benefits a society.

So are you agreeing that the Nazi regime is not evil then?

You cannot aggregate morality. On the other hand, would it have been morally better for someone to unilaterally go in and tell the Germans who they can and cannot elect? Would you have supported Germany as a British colony to keep them from electing who they want?

By what right do you claim that you should have safe products and services given that everything is determined by a profit driven market.

If it is represented as being safe when it is not, I have been defrauded. A fraud is tantamount to theft, and is considered by most libertarians to be about as illegitimate as the initiation of force.

Isn't product safety government departments which is derived from taxes claimed from businesses an interference in the natural workings of the market?

Not usually, except at the very bottom end where most people don't purchase. Beleive it or not, people like safe and pure products, and so producers have profit motives to provide a cleaner and safer product than their competitors.

Would you rather have food poisoning after consuming competing brands that chose to beat out the competition by reducing safety standards?

Why would anyone buy a food that is poisonous? Any business that did that would quickly be out of business simply because practically nobody would buy such a shoddy product.

Further, who in the end decides to hire these talented people for work?

They do!

By what right are you claiming the ability to hire them if they are not free to choose themselves how they want apply their talents?
They are already free to do so!

t's simple. Accumulated money allows for accumulated power over what to do with resources including human resources.
But how does money accumulate? It accumulates in a capitalist society by persuading people to GIVE it to you, or by creating it directly by doing something that is value by OTHERS. Therefore, the accumulation of money and the power it entails is nothing more than the direct result of providing an equal or greater amount of value to the society in aggregate.

Kwisatz Haderach

2nd May 2007, 00:02

Originally posted by pusher robot+May 01, 2007 04:36 pm--> (pusher robot @ May 01, 2007 04:36 pm) I'd say it's a better indicator of the addled thinking of communists. We don't have moon bases and floating cities because there's no real value in those things. We've been to the moon, and found out pretty much everything there is to find out about it. There's nothing at all to be gained by a moon base right now except to prove that it could be done. There's no actual reason people should live in floating cities when there is plenty of land on Earth. [/b]
Don't be an idiot. There are enormous long-term gains to be made from the exploration and colonization of space - the problem is that the capital costs are equally gigantic. Investing in space exploration is the most expensive, high-risk, long-term and possibly high-return investment anyone can make (the high return comes in when your company owns a large chunk of an entire populated planet). But because the cost and the risk are so high, no one enters the market. The "space market" is a market where the minimum efficient scale is far beyond the size of any existing corporation.

Now, we have two choices. We can either close our eyes and hope that the progress of technology will accidentaly lower the cost and risk of starting up a space business some day, or we can rely on our governments to lead the way.

Originally posted by pusher [email protected]

Opening up a new frontier for human settlement is valueless? Says who?
Says the aggregated demand of each individual in the society, as proven by the fact that people are not willing to pay for such endeavors. What do you have to contradict that? Your feelings? What right do you suppose to substitute your own judgement for that of your fellow citizens?
I completely deny that the market is in any way adequate to measure the aggregated wishes of society. Notice I said "wishes", not "demand", because, as you know all too well, market demand is tied up with the amount of wealth you hold (one dollar, one vote). Further, I argue that many of the choices made by people in the marketplace are irrational, in the sense that they are made on the spur of the moment and people would choose differently if they took more time to fully reflect on all the implications of their choices. Your idea that market demand measures the aggregated wishes of society is based on the assumption of perfect consumer rationality, which is frankly a load of crap.

If you really want to know society's aggregate wishes on something, put it to a vote (one where more wealth doesn't give you more influence) and make sure people are fully informed about the pros and cons of each side.

I'll wager that if given enough time to properly consider the issue, a lot more people will support space exploration than if they are asked their opinion on the spur of the moment.

pusher robot
But how does money accumulate? It accumulates in a capitalist society by persuading people to GIVE it to you, or by creating it directly by doing something that is value by OTHERS. Therefore, the accumulation of money and the power it entails is nothing more than the direct result of providing an equal or greater amount of value to the society in aggregate.
Disclaimer: The above is only true if we assume perfect competition, perfect information, perfect rationality on the part of consumers and producers, no large differences in market power, no natural monopolies, small or non-existant economies of scale, and a perfect rule of law. Did I miss anything?

Bottom line is, you are describing a laughably simplistic model that might work for a society composed of two people, but is so far removed from the real world that it would take me a few hours to explain all the different ways in which it can fail.

Red Tung

2nd May 2007, 04:30

I call BS. The shuttle's advanced ceramic heat shield alone cost more than that. Please provide a source.

Ceramics are made of? Very scarce elements?

I don't know why you think I was talking only about material costs anyways. The fact is there are only so many people with these kinds of advanced skills. If they are working on pointless space boondoggles, they aren't working on something else.

But, only if you treat knowledge, education and qualifications as a commodity which in fact this system does with non-free post-secondary education.

Space exploration is only pointless if you regard preventing eventual human extinction as pointless. Mass extinction events are a regular occurence on the planet, but then again this is not very interesting to those who live hedonistic lives of fabulous wealth.

This is simply a ludicrous re-imagining of history. Just look at the history of IBM and EDS, or TI or Motorola. "Hobbyists" had nothing to do with it. Jobs and Wozniak didn't actually design, develop, or manufacture most of the microchips in their Apple computers, you know. You only have to look at the market today to see how silly your statement is. Are hobbyists designing multigigahertz processors and billion-dollar fabrication facilities?

But, only for those who saw the potential for personal computers was this possible. IBM was still concentrating on building mainframes and considered the personal computer market as a fad. Why do you think they passed off the contract to make the operating system for their first personal computer to an amateurish hacker name Bill Gates?

It demonstrates no such thing, because there was an unimaginable utility to computer technology, and there remains great utility today.

Utility for what though? Monopolies and competing incompatible standards have basically made the computer market only usable for people with the technical skills to use it and for big business. Your average user is plagued by a hostile, unfriendly environment because of the needless redundancies caused by mutually hostile companies vying for market share.

Further, computers is only as useful as what is designed to run on them which has made some software companies very rich, but in terms of cost their products after paying for the initial labour of programmers is essentially zero. So are "poor" people able to afford such prices for what in reality cost pennies to make? The previous fact simply makes "pirating" software just that much more justifiable.

I simply don't know how to argue with somebody who just makes up whatever facts they feel like. Back here in reality, using roughly the most efficient rocket technology that is practical, it takes about 1.0 * 10^13 joules to put the space shuttle in orbit. That's about 2.75 MILLION kilowatt-hours, roughly 25% of the total electrical usage of the ENTIRE U.S. for a YEAR.

Go back to school buddy.

Escape velocity (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vesc.html#ves)

Energy use of the U.S. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html)

You cannot aggregate morality. On the other hand, would it have been morally better for someone to unilaterally go in and tell the Germans who they can and cannot elect? Would you have supported Germany as a British colony to keep them from electing who they want?

Choose between Nazi Germany and the British Empire? Makes about as much sense as choosing between arsenic and cyanide.

Why would anyone buy a food that is poisonous? Any business that did that would quickly be out of business simply because practically nobody would buy such a shoddy product.

Only for people who can afford expensive restaurants and food supplies apparently, otherwise who gives a damn if there's no profit in it?

Further, who in the end decides to hire these talented people for work?

They do!

By what right are you claiming the ability to hire them if they are not free to choose themselves how they want apply their talents?

They are already free to do so!

No they don't because they don't pay themselves, somebody else pays them.

They are not free because there are always exceptions to people finding the work they prefer given that they do not hire themselves and given today's profit driven economy this is the rule and not the exception.

wtfm8lol

2nd May 2007, 04:49

Go back to school buddy.

Escape velocity

Energy use of the U.S.

you find us a rocket design that's even theoretically near being efficient enough to make that matter.

colonelguppy

2nd May 2007, 06:00

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 30, 2007 11:07 pm
So what have happened sinced the lunar touch down was scored? The Capitalist ruling class simply decided that the game was over and packed up and went home. Pathetic.

With 1970's technology lunar landings was possible. So with more than 30 years of technological development what's been accomplished? Where's the lunar colonies and floating cities? Instead it's just more of the same misuse of technology for "value" speculation, swindling and war profiteering. If that's not a clear indication of the decrepit state of the present system and their advocates I don't know what is.
lunar colonies? are you fucking serious? there isn't near the technology level to create a sustained effort to colonize the moon and use what little recources that it may or may not offer and still keep a net profit, whether it be a private or state sponsored effot.

talk about a complete waste of time and recources, why the fuck would we currently want to colonize the moon?

Lynx

2nd May 2007, 06:40

NASA does intend to establish a base on the Moon as a stepping stone for a manned mission to Mars. There is also 'talk' about collecting a rare form of Helium found on the Moon.

2nd May 2007, 06:43

gup, scroll up and read the article I linked to.

RebelDog

2nd May 2007, 08:00

colonelguppy

2nd May 2007, 08:07

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 02, 2007 12:43 am
gup, scroll up and read the article I linked to.
outpost =/= colony

Red Tung

2nd May 2007, 08:58

talk about a complete waste of time and recources, why the fuck would we currently want to colonize the moon?

If they had cheap labour, anti trade-union laws and tax breaks for the rich, you'd be on the next shuttle.

Which makes any lunar colony impossible to run as a Capitalist entity unless the rich elite takes control of the entire air supply of the whole colony as if the technical workers that's required to run a space colony would simply allow them to do that. :rolleyes:

More likely if push comes to shove any annoying want-to-be tyrant Capitalist or otherwise would simply be flushed out of an airlock. :lol:

ZX3

2nd May 2007, 14:30

Originally posted by The [email protected] 02, 2007 02:00 am

talk about a complete waste of time and recources, why the fuck would we currently want to colonize the moon?

If they had cheap labour, anti trade-union laws and tax breaks for the rich, you'd be on the next shuttle.
If the costs of going into space were less than currently is, and the rewards were as some say they are, then there would indeed be a mad rush to go to space.

But as always, the socialists on these boards seem to think socialism is exempt from these sorts of calculations.

pusher robot

2nd May 2007, 14:46

Go back to school buddy.

Escape velocity

Energy use of the U.S.

Argh, I left out the word "household." Otherwise I stand by my figures.

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ENE...ICY/tables.html (http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ENERGY/ENERGY_POLICY/tables.html)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us.html

No they don't because they don't pay themselves, somebody else pays them.

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here. They are only freely choosing their work if they are not compensated for it? Presumably even in a communist society, they would still be paid by others for their work.

RebelDog

2nd May 2007, 15:51

If the costs of going into space were less than currently is, and the rewards were as some say they are, then there would indeed be a mad rush to go to space.

They you go again ZX3, you have no concept of human activity beyond the relentless search for profit and private gain.

But as always, the socialists on these boards seem to think socialism is exempt from these sorts of calculations.

Nonsense. As has been shown to you on many occasions in this forum it is capitalism that is the fetter on human progress and the greatest waster of resources in human history.

colonelguppy

2nd May 2007, 16:09

and going to the moon to try and get people to live on it isn't a waste of recources?

ichneumon

2nd May 2007, 18:18

and going to the moon to try and get people to live on it isn't a waste of recources?

i call this crap "atheist mythology". they think because a pseudo scientist wrote about flying around on magic-rocket-cars and zapping people with lightening bolts, that's it's somehow different from other mythology.

science fiction is FICTION, people. people belong on the moon like a fish belongs atop mt. etna. get real.

Red Tung

2nd May 2007, 23:55

science fiction is FICTION, people. people belong on the moon like a fish belongs atop mt. etna. get real.

Hope you like the idea of eventual and inevitable human extinction then.

Red Tung

3rd May 2007, 00:04

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here. They are only freely choosing their work if they are not compensated for it? Presumably even in a communist society, they would still be paid by others for their work.

Which means they are not paid on an objective basis for their work with work defined as quantifiable physical effort and time spent and that is why "Communist" society is never going to work if somebody else pays you on a subjective basis using a device for notarising debts like money is. Aside from the problem of matching aggregate supply with aggregate demand with subjective pricing and wages what is going to prevent a near monopoly of "wealth" from concentrating in one pole. Any society that still uses money for compensating labour is not going to be a free and fair society for very long.

colonelguppy

3rd May 2007, 08:22

why should people be payed off quantifiable physical effort?

Red Tung

3rd May 2007, 09:20

Because that is the only fair way to do it without getting into an unresolvable subjective argument about how to distribute the proceeds of labour (or delegation of labour as managers do). So, if you receive high revenue from sales of your product of services developed from your ideas that proves nothing else other than you had brilliant ideas that sells. Should you be compensated for your ideas? But, nothing exists in a vacuum. Your ideas develop from all your experience and knowledge gain from others that provided you with the necessary background to have the potential for new ideas. Further, who's to say that other people making your ideas possible shouldn't be rewarded? How much did they contribute? A little? A lot? How do you judge? The great inventor or entrepreneur mythology of historical progress is simply that. It is a myth. All human endeavors, discoveries and development are a collective effort from those who cooperatively work with you and also drawing from historical knowledge gained from those who worked before you.

Further, given that your developed product or service sells, shouldn't the returned revenue be used to generate more production by increasing productive capacity? How do you judge how much goes out to rewards and how much goes out to acquiring production assets? In the present system production is only increased if the subjectively determined price nets more profits for whoever owns the means of production. So given that fact, you may not even be the one who came up with a new groundbreaking idea, but you can still reap the massively disproportionate rewards simply from the fact that whatever ingenuity has gone into making a successful product belongs to the company and seldom to the inventor as he is simply renting out his/her brain for a living. Power to acqure more wealth resides in those who have ownership to already massive amounts of wealth and who are able to rent labour including mental labour required for making every new successful product. So besides the ambigious and undeterminable proportion of money revenue to distribute between labour compensation and acquisition of increased productive capacity, you have the unfair distribution of rewards to owners who may never have contributed anything to actual product development from which all revenue is possible.

Being compensated from a universal unit of measure for time and energy spent in work is the only reliable way of determining how much to compensate without getting into ambiguous arguments that is "resolved" today through blackmail and bribery from those who have an advantage in wealth ownership over other the negotiating party who is more desperate for wealth. For more information view my link on Technocracy which relies on physical resource accounting rather than debt trading.

Jazzratt

3rd May 2007, 09:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:18 pm

and going to the moon to try and get people to live on it isn't a waste of recources?

i call this crap "atheist mythology". they think because a pseudo scientist wrote about flying around on magic-rocket-cars and zapping people with lightening bolts, that's it's somehow different from other mythology.
See, I like to call this a strawman fallacy. See if you can work out why.

science fiction is FICTION, people. people belong on the moon like a fish belongs atop mt. etna. get real.
No shit science fiction is fiction, that's a fucking tautology and completely irrelevant.

And if we could find a way to get fish atop mount etna and had a compelling reason to do so then I'd be up for it. Where a creature *belongs* is mysticist shite.

Question everything

3rd May 2007, 21:43

Originally posted by Jazzratt+May 03, 2007 08:39 am--> (Jazzratt @ May 03, 2007 08:39 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 05:18 pm

and going to the moon to try and get people to live on it isn't a waste of recources?

i call this crap "atheist mythology". they think because a pseudo scientist wrote about flying around on magic-rocket-cars and zapping people with lightening bolts, that's it's somehow different from other mythology.
See, I like to call this a strawman fallacy. See if you can work out why. [/b]
:lol: :lol: :lol:

ichneumon you have just lost my respect. They are already planning it, there is a program in Canada as well, I would understand where you were coming from if you said it ten years ago but now it is accually gonig to Happen.

pusher robot

3rd May 2007, 22:05

shouldn't the returned revenue be used to generate more production by increasing productive capacity? How do you judge how much goes out to rewards and how much goes out to acquiring production assets?

You have to take into account that increasing production consumes scarce resources, resources that might create mor value to the population of consumers in some other activity. Therefore, you judge whether or not to increase production based on whether the costs are greater or less than the rewards. If not, then those resources are better used for your production. If so, then there are other goods that should increase their production instead of yours.

luxemburg89

3rd May 2007, 22:21

we appear to be wandering from the point. This thread was set up to determine who dies - and the answer is wtfm8lol, pusher robot and Tim Henman.

colonelguppy

4th May 2007, 00:46

Because that is the only fair way to do it without getting into an unresolvable subjective argument about how to distribute the proceeds of labour (or delegation of labour as managers do). So, if you receive high revenue from sales of your product of services developed from your ideas that proves nothing else other than you had brilliant ideas that sells. Should you be compensated for your ideas? But, nothing exists in a vacuum. Your ideas develop from all your experience and knowledge gain from others that provided you with the necessary background to have the potential for new ideas. Further, who's to say that other people making your ideas possible shouldn't be rewarded? How much did they contribute? A little? A lot? How do you judge? The great inventor or entrepreneur mythology of historical progress is simply that. It is a myth. All human endeavors, discoveries and development are a collective effort from those who cooperatively work with you and also drawing from historical knowledge gained from those who worked before you.

ok, but not all work is valued equally by society. just because everyone plays a part doesn't mean everyones part is equal. unfortunately, value is always going to be subjective, and theres no real way to objectively define "fair" in the sense that you would want.

Further, given that your developed product or service sells, shouldn't the returned revenue be used to generate more production by increasing productive capacity? How do you judge how much goes out to rewards and how much goes out to acquiring production assets?

subjectively?

In the present system production is only increased if the subjectively determined price nets more profits for whoever owns the means of production. So given that fact, you may not even be the one who came up with a new groundbreaking idea, but you can still reap the massively disproportionate rewards simply from the fact that whatever ingenuity has gone into making a successful product belongs to the company and seldom to the inventor as he is simply renting out his/her brain for a living.

it's usually seldom the inventor alone who makes a product succesful, besides, the inventors don't take on the risk that the owners do.

Power to acqure more wealth resides in those who have ownership to already massive amounts of wealth and who are able to rent labour including mental labour required for making every new successful product. So besides the ambigious and undeterminable proportion of money revenue to distribute between labour compensation and acquisition of increased productive capacity, you have the unfair distribution of rewards to owners who may never have contributed anything to actual product development from which all revenue is possible.

of course they did, they provided the capital and under took the risk, and was able to ccordinate all aspects of production in an effective manner.

Being compensated from a universal unit of measure for time and energy spent in work is the only reliable way of determining how much to compensate without getting into ambiguous arguments that is "resolved" today through blackmail and bribery from those who have an advantage in wealth ownership over other the negotiating party who is more desperate for wealth. For more information view my link on Technocracy which relies on physical resource accounting rather than debt trading.

time and energy spended has nothing to do with the value or utility of a product though. i could spend all my day picking up leaves but what good does that do anyone in the long run?

IcarusAngel

4th May 2007, 03:00

I'd hardly call Stephen Hawking a "pseudo-scientist" but he warns us (http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=178f89d3d9987efabcf31c6fb8364fd6.654968) about upcoming catastrophes that will destroy the human population. This is how right-wingers respond (http://gorillamask.net/colberthawking.shtml). Seems to me the guys Fox News brings in have no scientific training.

Scientists study the "natural world," they thus know about certain problems in regards to certain species, including humans. The reality is that human survival might depend on going to the moon or some place else because humans under capitalism have raped, razed, pillaged, and plunged the earth to the point where the damage might be irreversible.

Hawking isn't the only one, the great biologist Ernst Mayr also warned us about human extinction and numerous other scientists -- especially climatologists, ecologists, etc. -- have talked about it as well.

Red Tung

4th May 2007, 08:02

it's usually seldom the inventor alone who makes a product succesful, besides, the inventors don't take on the risk that the owners do.

Risk comes from owing a debt to be repaid. Money is debt. Remove money and there is no debt and therefore no risk. What is provided is simply the quantified physical measure of production generated from the whole society as parcelled out to each individual citizen for either investment or consumption. No debts or risk required.

time and energy spended has nothing to do with the value or utility of a product though. i could spend all my day picking up leaves but what good does that do anyone in the long run?

And somebody with a leaf blower will spend less time and energy in producing the same results therefore be more attractive for his services purchased on the market than the one picking up leaves with his bare hands. Which is a good thing because the person picking up leaves with his bare hands is inefficient at manual labour, but could be a very good novel writer.

ZX3

4th May 2007, 11:45

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 04, 2007 02:02 am

it's usually seldom the inventor alone who makes a product succesful, besides, the inventors don't take on the risk that the owners do.

Risk comes from owing a debt to be repaid. Money is debt. Remove money and there is no debt and therefore no risk. What is provided is simply the quantified physical measure of production generated from the whole society as parcelled out to each individual citizen for either investment or consumption. No debts or risk required.

time and energy spended has nothing to do with the value or utility of a product though. i could spend all my day picking up leaves but what good does that do anyone in the long run?

And somebody with a leaf blower will spend less time and energy in producing the same results therefore be more attractive for his services purchased on the market than the one picking up leaves with his bare hands. Which is a good thing because the person picking up leaves with his bare hands is inefficient at manual labour, but could be a very good novel writer.
One would think writing novels involves a little more than just the use of hands...

But you are correct. A person who uses a leaf blower is going to be more efficient at that labor than a person who uses a rake. And that is because the former can do the job quicker, and can clear more yards in the same period of time than the fellow with the rake.

However, since the labor involved in work is the calculation used in socialism, the above formula is difficult to make in a socialist community. And this is because the fellow with the rake could work real hard, the fellow with the leaf blower be a bit of a slacker (or simply inefficient or unskilled in the use of a leaf blower), both could clear the same amount of land, and the socialist calculation would be that both workers are equally valuable. Since cost is, supposedly, not a factor in socialist calculations, it becomes difficult for the socialist community to weigh the impact upon itself by the hard worker and by the inefficient worker. Both, after all, have worked.

ZX3

4th May 2007, 12:16

Originally posted by The [email protected] 02, 2007 09:51 am

If the costs of going into space were less than currently is, and the rewards were as some say they are, then there would indeed be a mad rush to go to space.

They you go again ZX3, you have no concept of human activity beyond the relentless search for profit and private gain.

But as always, the socialists on these boards seem to think socialism is exempt from these sorts of calculations.

Nonsense. As has been shown to you on many occasions in this forum it is capitalism that is the fetter on human progress and the greatest waster of resources in human history.
Red Tung's arguments about space are fascinating and completek\ly on point.

What is RT saying? That humanity needs to marshall the resources of society, its skilled engineers and scientists, its natural resources, its time to put humanity into space. Why? because humainy is facing extinction. Aside from the morbidness of the reason, RT clearly believes that marshalling society's resources to build better mass transit, better medicine, better factories is not the best use of labor, time and technology of society, since presumably such efforts are useless should humanity become extinct. Those efforts should therefore be focused on getting into space, and socialism will do a much better job of reaching this objective than will capitalism. Fine. I am not here mocking it, but wish to point something out:

Since the objective of space travel and habitation will result in a better situation for humanity, it can be said that RT is arguing that the COSTS to the community in NOT focusing labor, time and resources on better medicine ect, but on travelling to space, is worth it because the benefits to the community will be much greater going to space than by focusing on pushing the human life span to 120, and be earthbound. A choice is being made. Humanity may not be living to 120, but humanity will not be extinct. The costs of space travel and habitation are worth the benefits accrued.

In other words, RT is saying that humanity will "profit" from space travel and space habitation. Not only that, but the OBJECTIVE of such space activity is to produce profit for humanity. Otherwise, if humanity does not benefit from going to space, if it does not "profit" from it, why bother marshalling all the resources of society to do so? And since that the GREATEST profit to the community will be accrued by going to space, and not by improving life on the ground, space is where the greatest efforts of the community ought to be concentrated. So profit should be the objective of going into space.

RT is proposing that the socialist community use capitalist economic calculations to get itself into space.

I've said before, one cannot analyse socialism in terms of capitalism. Socialism has to be analysed in terms of socialism. So one has to analyse the liklihood of a community which bases its economic calculation on work performed BY the community, as does socialism, of getting into space. As opposed to a community which bases its economic calculation the VALUE of the work performed TO the community, as does capitalism. The former would seem less likely since its not focused on whether items produced as any value to the community.